A Candid Hominid

Does it Matter if Vegan Cheese is Terrible?

2014-06-26T15:03:00.000-04:00

The writers and editors at HuffPost Taste are apparently "in favor of veganism". They aren't, you know, vegan, but they do occasionally write pieces on the topic. The latest, by Alison Spiegel, is titled "Taste Test: Friends Don't Let Friends Eat Vegan Cheese". It evaluates seven vegan cheeses and concludes that they are "a crime no one should commit".

I haven't tried the varieties sampled by HuffPost, but I have definitely eaten unpleasant vegan cheese. This is an area poised for growth. The market ten years from now will look much different, just as current offerings are better than those of the past. Many people happen to enjoy Daiya Shreds, which only recently became widely available. In the past two years several vegan cheese cookbooks have been published. They contain original ideas not yet incorporated within commercial products [0]. Spiegel says she "still has hope" for vegan cheese, and I think that is wise.

But I'm not here to defend vegan cheese. It doesn't interest me very much, partly because I don't miss dairy cheese. Beyond that, I'm disturbed by any attempt to imitate a nonvegan product. Why would anyone want to replicate the sensory experience of something derived from suffering and death? The answer, of course, is that we find comfort and joy in the familiar and traditional. Unfortunately, most of us weren't raised vegan. Perhaps this explains why I pour plant milks on my cereal. I'm thankful they don't taste like cows' milk, but there would certainly be a market for those that do.

It would be nice to leave behind all vestiges of the nonhumans as food paradigm — to stop pursuing the perfect vegan cheddar and develop our appreciation of the countless other culinary possibilities offered by fruits, vegetables, herbs, spices, legumes, grains, seeds, and nuts. I worry that we suggest, or start to believe, that the vegan revolution hinges on people tinkering away in kitchens or labs, rather than people educating everyone they can about their moral responsibility.

But is it wrong to eat vegan meats and cheeses? I don't think so. They are often expensive and unhealthy, but they can definitely be helpful, especially during someone's transition to veganism. The vegan pioneer Leslie Cross (1914-1979) founded Plamil, which began selling a soy milk concentrate in 1965. He believed a suitable plant milk would eliminate a hurdle on some people's path to veganism [1]:

“What is needed [...] is acceptance of the idea that animal emancipation is a desirable aim. If a sufficient number of people experienced such a mental conversion, then the skills and ingenuity of men could be used to develop alternatives to those products of animal origin which the majority of men undoubtedly believe to be essential to their well-being. These products — a completely satisfactory non-animal milk is an example — are necessary if the universal practical application of the ideal is to be achieved. For men and women are not all alike and there are many for whom the practical obstacles must at present seem insurmountable. We cannot shut our eyes to the undoubted fact that to such people such obstacles are real and not imaginary.

Substitutes for nonvegan products have come a long way since the time of Cross. Yet new vegans can't just switch to indistinguishable imitations of their favorite exploitive things. And, because the replicators and holodecks of Star Trek aren't on the horizon, this will be the case for decades to come.

Those who loved visiting the zoo will have to try a park instead. Those who enjoyed wearing silk ties will have to buy ties made of other fibers. Those who loved dairy cheese will have to find other things to eat. This might include vegan cheese, but our palates simply can't be satisfied in the exact same ways. Food can be a source of tremendous pleasure for vegans, but personal adjustments are required.

I suspect many of the thousands of ‘likes’ bestowed upon this HuffPost article are from nonvegans titillated by what appears to be a dig at veganism. ‘See! Veganism is super difficult and best reserved for weirdos. Let's share a laugh at their misfortune!’

This kind of reaction should be expected so long as most animal groups and advocates don't discuss veganism as a moral obligation. Spiegel puts it in the category of "dietary or allergy restriction". Most readers have no context for understanding this taste test, which assumes dairy is the norm and vegans are denied the indulgence for some unknown or unimportant reason.

Here is the missing element: Vegans are compelled by the immorality of nonhuman exploitation. Most of us don't consider dairy products to be food. We don't want to eat them; we can't eat them.

Appealing substitutes for nonvegan things do make veganism more approachable for some. But, ultimately, we have everything we need to be happy and healthy right now. We should all be expected to avoid nonhuman exploitation — regardless of when new products might hit the market.

So does it matter if vegan cheese is terrible? Sort of. Ideally it would be incredible, but we need not put the vegan movement on hold. If someone is vegan for moral reasons, they won't be perturbed by the claim that some vegan cheeses taste like "pencil erasers and grandma's corked homemade wine".

Postscript — February 2015

“"[T]here are a plethora of vegan cheeses available on the market and vegans have discovered how to veganize every cheese-laden dish on the planet. There's life after cheese, I promise. It's called vegan cheese and it has all of the taste and none of the suffering." — Ed Coffin in 2014, from an article published by The Huffington Post [2]

I understand the impulse behind these claims. It would be helpful if we could tell people that when they select food their choice is between X (derived from suffering and death) that tastes like Y... or Z (derived from plants) that also tastes like Y. Because they both taste like Y, you might as well select Z (eat vegan)!

In truth, your choice is between X (derived from suffering and death) that tastes like Y... or Z (derived from plants) that tastes like V. You should choose Z because it's the right thing to do. Z doesn't taste exactly like X, so you will have to adjust your palate and expectations.

By way of analogy, we aren't in a position of offering people a choice between two glasses of water that taste the exact same but have different origins: one is distilled river water and the other is distilled tears from tortured toddlers. It's more like we are offering a choice between distilled river water with a squeeze of lemon and distilled tears from tortured toddlers. Morally, of course, the choice is clear. But there is definitely a difference in taste that some will find disagreeable (at least at first).

We shouldn't lead nascent vegans to believe they can have the exact same sensory experiences as their nonvegan selves. They can't. Plants offer nearly endless culinary potential, but they can't be made to replicate the flesh and secretions of nonhuman animals. In many cases they can be made to approximate nonvegan foods, but there are usually noticeable differences in taste, texture, and/or smell.

Let's keep it honest and always focus people on the moral issue: unnecessarily exploiting nonhuman animals is wrong. New vegans can eat awesome food, but it will be different than what they are accustomed to. And even if vegans could only eat bland and boring food, we would still be morally obligated to be vegan.

Endnotes

[0] Search Amazon for "vegan cheese". Food bloggers are also contributing recipes.

[1] Leslie Cross. "The Surge of Freedom" (1954 article)

[2] Ed Coffin. "Ten Things Every Vegan Is Sick of Hearing" (2014 article)

This Vegan's Daydreams

2013-07-28T13:20:00.000-04:00

Sometimes I imagine a better future: Where we don't make millions of nonhuman animals suffer and die every single day. Where we don't treat cows, chickens, fishes, pigs, bees, and goats like they are things we can use and kill at our discretion. Where we view every sentient being as a unique individual who values his or her life. Where we never breed or capture someone so they can be our property. Where we feed and clothe ourselves with plants, minerals, and synthetics. Where we entertain ourselves without confining alligators in zoos, forcing horses to race, or watching dolphins perform tricks.

Somehow I need this. Perhaps because I believe almost anything I envision is possible. If you think that's exceedingly weird, please disregard it. You will find that what I've outlined is by no means unrealistic or utopian. In fact, it's thoroughly modest: A nicer place both for animals who aren't human, and for those who are. An improved natural environment for everyone, and healthier bodies for us. Less exploitation and violence endured by nonhumans, and more peace in our hearts.

Someday this will be true. But it won't happen overnight or be handed to us by the government. Society's thinking regarding animals who aren't human must change — one person at a time. Are there obstacles to overcome? Certainly. Our exploitive behavior is supported by seductive forces like pleasure, convenience, and tradition. But there has never been a more fertile time to plant the seeds of justice. For one, it's indisputable that over 99.9% of the suffering and death we inflict on nonhuman animals is unnecessary. Secondly, most of us already strongly empathize with cats, dogs, or members of another nonhuman species. Finally, thanks to resources like the internet and the increased popularity of veganism, rejecting exploitation has never been easier. Be encouraged by these facts. Become a vegan! If you have the time and inclination, patiently and creatively educate others.

Someone reading this believes veganism won't change anything. Remember that each vegan automatically sends two powerful messages to those around them: nonhuman exploitation is wrong, and it's something you can live without. Each vegan also lowers demand for exploitive products and increases demand for the alternatives. But suppose the world only gets more violent from here on out. While that would be awful, it would have zero affect on our moral obligation to be vegan. We simply can't justify unnecessarily using and killing sentient beings. So consider which side of history you want to be on, but, most importantly, consider doing the right thing.

Change the World: Become a Vegan

2011-12-22T02:29:00.000-05:00

This year billions of unique individuals have needlessly suffered and died (sadly, millions will be killed in the few remaining days). Next year won't be much different, but it won't always be this way. We are going to change the world. You and I are going to be vegans for the rest of our lives, and we are going to change the world. It's a beautiful thing.

Confronted with an ongoing atrocity, what are we to do? We could ignore it and let the next person or next generation claim responsibility. We could eat cheese and ice cream made with cows' milk. We could adorn skin and hair (‘leather’ and ‘wool’). We could use animals who aren't human in countless other ways. After all, no one is going to stop us. Society welcomes and encourages our participation in their exploitation.

Or we could say no. We could become vegans. If we don't, who will?

You might believe veganism won't change anything. Does a lone vegan affect the number of animals who suffer and die? In a few cases, the decision to be vegan does directly forestall exploitation. For instance, a vegan won't join a fishing expedition or place an order for purebred puppies. But, as a general matter, the answer is no. If a consumer stops buying chickens' eggs from the grocery store, a ‘layer hen’ won't be released to a peaceful sanctuary life; one less chicken won't be bred into a life of servitude.

Although a single human not eating eggs won't cause fewer chickens to be exploited, millions of people making that choice will. So, collectively, vegans do affect supply by lowering demand. As veganism spreads, our effect becomes even greater.

Vegans also create change by setting an example for others. By publicly refusing to participate in immoral institutions, they act as representatives of the exploited (who are often absent by virtue of being dead). They show that living without nonhuman exploitation is possible and, in all likelihood, won't result in ignominy or ruin health.

Many choose to amplify their impact by actively educating others about the what, why, and how of veganism. The forms this can take are limited only by imagination: developing artwork, distributing literature, teaching someone how to cook, having conversations with friends, giving presentations to strangers, and more. The importance of education can never be overstated. A society will never be peaceful and just while its members seek out products and activities that require innocent animals to be subjugated and murdered.

But suppose a particular vegan in no way affects supply, sets an example, or educates others. They are still doing the right thing. Imagine a scenario involving humans: Several thousand people across the world regularly pay to see live internet video of women being raped and tortured. Dave receives an email inviting him to view these events, but he chooses not to participate. You probably agree with me that Dave's decision is morally obligatory — even though the women will still be exploited and none of the viewers will notice his absence.

There is never a bad time to start doing the right thing. Of course, the best time is now. The days you haven't been vegan are gone, and you can't have them back. Forget them. They belong to the past. Make today, tomorrow, and every day after the priority. They are yours.

But remember, you won't be taking this path alone. Others are on it with you, and many of them are willing to help you. Personally, I would love to address any thoughts or questions you might have: nathan {@} candidhominid.com

Animals Who Aren't Human: ‘Nonhuman’ or ‘Other’

2011-11-22T00:01:00.000-05:00

Are humans animals? Is the term nonhuman problematic? How should the phrase other animals be used? Continue reading to learn what this hominid thinks.

You and I are animals. We are also vertebrates, mammals, and primates. These facts are often masked by our language. In common usage ‘animals’ only refers to animals who aren't human [0]. So if you were asked to name a favorite animal, ‘humans’ would be considered a very strange, perhaps nonsensical, response.

Language indicating that humans are animals isn't just taxonomically accurate. It also challenges an aspect of speciesism: people not admitting they are animals or not feeling comfortable with the fact. These learned behaviors have a rational basis. Denying kinship with an oppressed group makes it easier to rationalize their plight.

This problem of humans being excluded from the term animals has existed for centuries. Obsolete solutions include ‘sub-human animals’ and ‘lower animals’:

“I believe I have something else in common with sub-humans — my hyper-sensitivity. I am convinced that animals are more sensitive than humans, and that the reason people do not know this is simply because they are not sensitive enough to feel that it is so. — Margaret Thorne in 1974 [1]

“[A] belief that in years to come there will be a recognition of the brotherhood between man and man, nation and nation, human and sub-human, which will transform a state of semi-savagery as we have it, into one of civilization, when there will be no barbarity such as warfare, or the robbery of the poor by the rich, or the ill-usage of the lower animals by mankind. — Henry Salt in 1939 [2]

Ernst Haeckel's (1834-1919) Tree of Life [3]

Both terms identify humans as animals but describe animals who aren't human as ‘sub’ and ‘lower’. This arbitrarily creates a hierarchy of value or importance. Not surprisingly, humans get the top spot. The good news is that modern ‘animal advocates’ don't label animals who aren't human in these ways. So how do they address the issue?

Most, despite knowing that humans are animals, always speak and write of humans and animals as two unrelated categories. In other words, their ‘animals’ means animals who aren't human. A small percentage of advocates use ‘nonhuman animals’ or ‘other animals’ — by far the most popular alternatives — intermittently with the conventional ‘animals’. Why not consistently? Some argue that accurate language can be clumsy, confusing, or annoying. I'm sympathetic to these concerns but rarely swayed by them [4]. Like very few advocates, I almost never use ‘animals’ to mean animals who aren't human.

Rather than discuss the importance of alternative language, the remainder of this essay evaluates the meaning and suitability of the terms currently in use. I argue that ‘nonhuman animals’ always and unmistakably refers to animals who aren't human. ‘Other animals’ only refers to animals who aren't human in some situations. It has a wide range of possible meanings, so the phrase should be used with care. This essay was sparked by reading a statement by David Nibert, professor at Wittenberg University [5]:

“Activists and scholars challenging racism have called into question the term "nonwhite," as implicit in its use is the acceptance of "white" as the norm. I am uncomfortable using the term "nonhuman animal" for similar reasons. The expression "other animals" is an explicit recognition of the fact that humans also are animals and an attempt to unmask anthropocentric views that allow for the creation of so much social distance from those who are oppressed.

The Term Nonhuman Animals
‘Nonhuman animals’ is just a short way of saying animals who aren't human. Likewise, ‘nonwhite people’ means people who aren't white. If someone is referencing people or animals in general who aren't white or human, I'm comfortable with both terms. They allow us to quickly communicate exactly who we are talking about. Terms like nonblack people and nondolphin animals can be used in equivalent ways.

Can ‘nonwhite’ and ‘nonhuman’ suggest that white and human are "the norm"? Yes, but only in certain cases. For example, describing a squirrel and a black person in their respective biographies only as nonhuman and nonwhite. This would erase part of their identity by reducing them to their relationship with a dominant category or group. We can avoid this problem by mentioning specific species or race whenever doing so is relevant and possible. Because animals who aren't human currently have the status of property, and there are far more animal species than human races, ‘nonhuman’ is called for more often than ‘nonwhite’. Regardless, both terms have acceptable uses.

Flexible Meaning of ‘Other Animals’
Interpreted using standard definitions of its component words, ‘nonhuman animals’ has a fixed meaning: animals who aren't human. However, the phrase formed by combining ‘other’ and ‘animals’ has a flexible meaning. In other words, its meaning is determined by the context of the statement.

Wrenches are much better than other tools.
‘Other tools’ = tools that aren't wrenches

In the expression ‘humans and other animals’, the latter phrase does mean animals who aren't human. Likewise, if someone said ‘raccoons, opossums, and other animals’ the latter phrase would mean animals who aren't raccoon or opossum [6].

Many wrenches get nervous near other tools.
‘Other tools’ = all tools, wrenches and not

Consider the sentence ‘Nathan enjoys learning about other animals’. Because Nathan is a human animal this ‘other animals’ must include all animals, those who are human and those who aren't. I probably want to hear about people's hobbies as much as read about how manatees communicate. Another example in this vein: ‘Humans have eaten other animals throughout history’. This refers to cannibalism as much as the more popular carnivorous activities. By substituting the term nonhuman animals, these sentences would be about animals who aren't human, rather than all animals [7].

Imposing a Fixed Meaning
A small number of advocates ascribe the fixed meaning of ‘nonhuman animals’ to the phrase other animals. For instance, Nibert will use the expression "an other animal" and begin a paragraph with "other animals were" [8]. His 2002 book "Animal Rights / Human Rights" contains a note about this language [9]:

“I largely refrain from using the terms people, nonhuman, and animals, choosing instead to use humans and other animals. This wording emphasizes human commonality with other inhabitants of the planet, rather than fostering a perception of separateness and "otherness" that helps rationalize disregard and mistreatment of other animals. The frequent use in this book of the broad and oversimplified category title of ‘other animals’ for the many and varied groups on the Earth is troubling for me, but I have not yet found a more respectful way to proceed.

The problems with this approach stem from using ‘other animals’ as though it always carries the meaning it has in ‘humans and other animals’ — one of the few constructions where the phrase actually means animals who aren't human. As shown in the previous section, the meaning of ‘other animals’, when based on established definitions, varies considerably in different contexts.

There is ample cause to encounter ‘Nathan enjoys learning about other animals’, or ‘humans have eaten other animals throughout history’ and believe the ‘other animals’ includes humans. But the fixed meaning approach has placed every use of the phrase in doubt. Perhaps Nathan like learning about animals who aren't human, or perhaps he likes learning about all animals. I guess it depends on who wrote the sentence.

The fixed meaning approach requires communicators and audiences to ignore how they naturally use and interpret the word other. They must believe, for instance, that ‘most zoos treat gazelles worse than the other other animals they exploit’ is a legitimate sentence. In the following quote from "Human Rights / Animal Rights", the phrase other animals is intended to mean animals who aren't human. However, when interpreted using standard definitions it means animals who aren't women, which includes men [10]:

“[...] countless women were tried for allegedly practicing witchcraft and causing great misfortunes to occur in their communities. Other animals were similarly used, as they, too, could be "possessed by demonic forces."

Notes describing this use of ‘other animals’ wont always be heard, seen, or provided with quoted materials. In any event, basic language conventions — the meaning of ‘other’ and the taxonomically accurate definition of ‘animal’ — are being flouted. This can only muddle communication. Needlessly, if my analysis of ‘nonhuman’ is correct.

Finally, and somewhat ironically, the fixed meaning approach is anthropocentric. It allows sentences like ‘millions of other animals die every day’, which provide no reference point for ‘other animals’. We are expected to assume the phrase in question means animals other than humans. Doesn't this suggest that humans are "the norm" and erase the possibility of ‘other animals’ referring to animals other than alligators, eagles, or shrimps? If so, Nibert's guidance creates the very problem he wants to avoid.

Closing Thoughts and Review
This matter isn't dire, but it flares up on occasion. Concerning priorities, I would rather advocates improperly use ‘animals’ or ‘other animals’ than not promote veganism and the rights of nonhuman animals. However, I believe we can seamlessly embrace an alternative lexicon while spreading a message of non-exploitation.

Humans are animals. Using ‘animals’ to mean animals who aren't human is problematic. Antiquated and speciesist alternatives include ‘sub-human animals’ and ‘lower animals’. Of the contemporary attempts to resolve this issue — ‘nonhuman animals’ and ‘other animals’ — only the former always and unmistakably refers to animals who aren't human. ‘Other animals’ can mean animals who aren't human (‘humans and other animals’), but it can also mean all animals (‘I hate seeing other animals suffer’).

Endnotes

[0] The phrase animals who aren't human is rare. It generates only 29 google search results. A Candid Hominid, the website hosting this essay, accounts for 5 of them. The phrase animals other than humans returns about 646,000 pages. I prefer the way ‘animals who aren't human’ reads and sounds. It uses ‘human’ as an adjective, which is common.

[1] Margaret Thorne. "Veganism Offers Freedom" (1974 essay) printed in "Pioneers of the New Age: Reminiscences of Twelve Early Vegans", edited by Kathleen Jannaway (1974 pamphlet) pages 4-6

[2] Nathan Schneider. "A History of Vegetarianism" (2010 essay) endnote 70

Quote found here: Charles R. Magel. "Restrictionists and Abolitionists" (1987 essay)

[3] Ernst Haeckel. "Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte" (4th edition – 1873 book) page 545. 1st edition: 1868

Image found here: December issue of "New Scientist" (days 23-30 numbers 1696-1697) page 61

[4] Replacing ‘animals’ with two or more words isn't always necessary. Some sentences will naturally apply to all animals. For instance, ‘feeding plants to animals and then eating their flesh is an inefficient way to obtain nutrients’ is true of both cows and humans. There are situations where terms like individuals, beings, and lives can be used as pronouns for ‘nonhuman animals’. For instance, the sentence ‘more nonhuman animals are used for food than all other purposes’ could be followed with ‘less suffering is caused by those forms of exploitation that involve fewer individuals’.

[5] AR Zone. Chat with David Nibert (2011)

I have been critical of Nibert's position, which he took in his 2002 book "Animal Rights / Human Rights", for several years. This is my first effort to address it formally.

[6] If ‘human’ can be an adjective, then ‘raccoon’ can be an adjective.

[7] Additional example: ‘Millions of humans live with other animals’. When my mother lived with her spouse and two children, she lived with three other animals. Her children have left the home, but she still lives with three other animals: her spouse and two cats.

[8] David Nibert. "Animal Rights / Human Rights" (2002 book) pages 153, 26

[9] Ibidem at page XV. emphasis in original

[10] Ibidem at page 153

Leslie Cross Source Materials

2011-07-17T23:33:00.007-04:00

"Out of the Dust of War" (1974) HTML or PDF
"Why Plamil?" (1973) HTML or PDF
"More About Milk" (1967) HTML or PDF
"The Vegan Story" (1955) HTML or PDF
"The Surge of Freedom" (1954) HTML or PDF
"The New Constitution" (1951) HTML or PDF
"Veganism Defined" (1951) HTML or PDF
"In Search of Veganism—2" (1949) HTML or PDF
"In Search of Veganism—1" (1949) HTML or PDF
"Man and Nature" (1948) HTML or PDF

“[In] order to produce a dairy cow, heart-rending cruelty, and not merely exploitation, is a necessity. Milk and its derivatives are products of pain, suffering, and abominable interference with the law of love. — Leslie Cross in 1943, from a letter printed in The Vegetarian Messenger [0]

“While we must admit that changes in world dietary habits cannot take place overnight, the long term view must surely be that we wish to bring practice more and more into line with what we inwardly know to be worthy of man’s better nature. If as we claim, we are a more noble creation than the animals, then we cannot avoid the logic of noblesse oblige. The most stringent test of the character of a man is how he acts toward those over whom he possesses power, and here the animals present us with an absolutely acid test. Surely we diminish ourselves by using our power over them merely to satisfy our own self-interested desires? — Leslie Cross in 1967, from a letter printed in Humanist [1]

1972 Plamil advertisement [2]

These writings add color to the history of veganism. Leslie Cross (1914-1979) was a resident of England who became vegan in 1942, two years before the term was coined. In July 1943 The Vegetarian Messenger, then magazine of the Vegetarian Society, printed a letter from Cross condemning the consumption of cows' milk [3]. This sparked a correspondence that ensued for many months and culminated in Donald Watson asking vegetarians interested in avoiding dairy to write him. Over 50 responses were received and in August 1944 he and Elsie Shrigley petitioned the Vegetarian Society to allow an official non-dairy faction. Their request was refused, and Watson went on to form the Vegan Society in November 1944.

Due in considerable part to Cross, by 1951 this group was explicitly rejecting all nonhuman exploitation, not just flesh and secretions. Watson considered Cross a "great friend" and said he "must be put in the records" as an "outstanding" and "faithful" contributor to the cause of veganism [4]. To address a practical hurdle on some people's path to veganism, Cross founded the Plantmilk Society in 1956. After five years this effort gave rise to Plamil, a company that in 1965 began selling a canned soy milk concentrate in London shops.

David and Francesca Cross [5]

"Man and Nature" is derived from a talk he gave in 1948. It was printed as a pamphlet for several years by the Vegan Society [6]. He argued that we injure ourselves by exploiting nonhuman animals. "In Search of Veganism—1" and "In Search of Veganism—2" appeared in consecutive 1949 issues of The Vegan. He claimed that an official definition of ‘vegan’ was necessary, and he offered thoughts on what it should entail. "The New Constitution" and "Veganism Defined" date from the spring of 1951, when Cross was vice president of the Vegan Society [7]. He commented on the group's newly "revised and extended rules", including a definition of ‘vegan’ consistent with his suggestions two years earlier.

"The Surge of Freedom", written in 1954 for the 10th anniversary edition of The Vegan, described why veganism came into being, "what it could mean for mankind", and how it will change our relationship with animals who aren't human. "The Vegan Story" is a talk he gave in 1955 to an assemblage of vegetarians. He described veganism as a "doctrine of freedom" that will eventually free nonhumans from bondage. "More About Milk", printed in the fall 1967 issue of The Vegan, presented the moral problems with using cows for milk. "Why Plamil?", an essay from Eva Batt's 1973 "What's Cooking?", gave the reasons for developing a company that markets plantmilk products. "Out of the Dust of War" is a retrospective from 1974 in which Cross discussed his role in Plamil and the importance of vitamin B12. He also wrote about becoming one of the first vegans labeled as such and raising his two children as healthy vegans despite having "hardly any data on which to draw". A description of them from the spring 1948 issue of The Vegan [8]:

“David, aged four, has been vegan from 16 months old and has maintained normal weight and physical development. He took fruit and vegetable juices and even raw salads from a very early age, with nut-cream until a year ago when Soylac was introduced. Now the latter is used for cereals and cooking only, drinks being of juices almost entirely. At 3½ years old he contracted measles, but the attack was slight and the recovery quick.

Francesca is now two years old and has been a vegan from birth (her mother being also vegan for a year before that). She was weaned on to nut-milk at 9-10 months and then on to Soylac at 14 months. Now she chooses fruit and vegetable juices to drink, and raw salads in preference to cooked vegetables.

She is very fit and sturdy, remarkably healthy and full of life, and it is interesting to note that she did not develop measles although she and David were playing together.

The spring 1956 issue of The Vegan contained an editorial by John Herson about the importance of developing a new vegetable milk [9]:

“There can be few vegans, particularly vegan parents, who would not welcome the appearance of a nourishing and workable vegetable milk, ready-made and suitable for a wide variety of uses. Yet no such product is at present marketed in this country.

The use of a vegetable milk is not to be disparaged on the grounds that it is an aping of the animal milk habit. Like the compound solid vegan protein savoury, a compound liquid vegan protein food would be a valuable adjunct in broadening the scope and range of vegan catering. And it would undoubtedly have its place in providing quickly and conveniently for the needs of the growing vegan family.

Such a product would also prove helpful and attractive to vegetarians and others wishing to make the change over to a vegan diet with the minimum of difficulty.

Those with electric mixers can certainly make highly nutritious milks from nut creams, raw nuts, or soya flour, etc. But there is still room for a compound product of standardized vitamin, mineral and amino acid content. It is not that it is essential: but it would certainly be highly convenient.

Is the time and are circumstances ripe for the marketing of such a product? Mr. Leslie J. Cross intends to find out. He has proposed an entirely independent body, the Veganmilk Association, in no way connected with any existing organisation, to determine the response of vegans, vegetarians, food reformers and those of orthodox dietary habits to the idea of getting a good non-animal milk on to the market. His announcement appears in this magazine. What is your response?

The above was immediately followed by Cross' plan to establish a new group [10]:

“A Veganmilk Association
Provided sufficient support is forthcoming, an effort will be made as early in 1956 as possible to form an organisation with the above suggested title, for the following purpose: To produce and make available to the general public in Great Britain a milk, the ingredients of which would be of plant origin; which would satisfy nutritional requirements; and which would be palatable, attractive, and simple to use for the purposes for which dairy milk is now used.

The Association would probably function in three main stages: (1) It would conduct an enquiry into progress made in this and other countries in the manufacture of non-animal milks. (2) Based upon information thus collected and collated, it would consider the problems connected with the successful manufacture and sale of such a milk upon the general market in this country, including the question of scientific research and experiment. (3) Upon the successful manufacture on a small scale of an acceptable milk, the Association would consider the question of large-scale manufacture and sale, including the organisation required to promote such manufacture and sale; such, for example, as the formation of a Limited Company.

While the work of the Association would be largely motivated by the ideals of vegetarianism and veganism, it would nevertheless function as a body with a precise practical job to do, and membership would be open to anyone prepared to support its work. The work would take a number of years and require considerable financial support. It would call for sustained and high endeavour, and though difficult, would be by no means impossible to achieve. Its successful outcome would be of immense value in many ways.

Any person interested in the proposal should send their name and address to Leslie J. Cross, 39, Willow Crescent East, Uxbridge, Middx., who will, if support is sufficient, act as convener of an inaugural meeting.

A letter from Cross, concerning the 21st anniversary of the Vegan Society, was printed in the winter 1965 issue of The Vegan [11]:

“It was with the most mellow nostalgia that I read Donald Watson's words in your current magazine. It was I who initiated the correspondence in the then Vegetarian Messenger which ultimately led to Mr. Watson founding the Vegan Society, and, of course, I was very happy to be among those few first founder members. For some time I was also an officer of the small but active London Vegan Group — it is incredible to think that twenty-one years have elapsed! You may rest assured that I shall be with you in spirit and send you every good wish for the next many twenty-one years!

I can, of course, assure you of the very best wishes and congratulations to the Vegan Society from the Plantmilk Society, since it was entirely because of my vegan convictions that I founded the Plantmilk Society in 1956. Although the Plantmilk Society embraces members who are neither vegan nor vegetarian, the impetus came from vegan ideals.

Please convey not only the best wishes of the Plantmilk Society, but my personal regards to those members of the "Old guard" who may still remember me.

The winter 1973 issue reported his remarks at a Vegan Society meeting [12]:

“Jack Sanderson, in the Chair, then introduced Leslie Cross, the founder of the Plant Milk Society, as one of the key people who had started the Vegan Society twenty nine years ago. Leslie Cross referring to the early days of the Society said that one of the factors that hindered the growth of the Vegan Society had been the absence of an alternative to dairy milk and of a non-animal source of B12. Early vegans, unable to take cows' milk because they recognized it as the end result of suffering and violent death, made do without milk or substituted home-made blends of nuts and soya and water. These lacked B12 and some early vegans became ill and many would be vegans were frightened off. Leslie Cross felt moved to work for the production of a humane milk alternative. Many vicissitudes were lived through before his objective was achieved and Plantmilk, under the legally acceptable name ‘Plamil’, was marketed in 1965.

It was being used by babies, children and adults who were allergic to animal milk, by diet reformers and the logically minded who regarded it as a better food for human consumption and by those who found distasteful the killing and the hurtful exploitation inseparable from dairy farming. It was not sold widely enough to pay for the cost of production so the Plantmilk Society had to promote other products.

In closing, Leslie Cross emphasised the importance for man's evolution of freeing himself from "the restricting confines of a slave owning economy and a slave owning mentality".

An obituary by Kathleen Jannaway appeared in the spring 1980 issue [13]:

“Leslie Cross, vegan for 35 years, founder member of the Vegan Society, and of the Plantmilk Society, died peacefully in his sleep on 2nd December, 1979. Inspired by his deep love of all life he looked forward to the day when plant milks would be generally used and a great burden thus lifted from the gentle cow. He was managing director of Plantmilk Ltd when it was at Langley, Bucks, was Secretary of the Plantmilk Society until his death, and often used his skill as a journalist to write on behalf of animals. We offer our sympathy to his wife, Constance, who worked so hard with him to forward the cause of animal compassion, and to his son and daughter, who were fine examples of vegan children.

Donald Watson spoke of Cross' historical significance in a 2002 interview [14]:

“A year or two before the Society was formed, I was corresponding with a very small number of people, scattered far and wide. Leslie Cross, who founded the Plantmilk Society, was a great friend of mine. He died comparatively early, well, in his early 70s, I think, and, in a letter he sent me, shortly before he died, he mentioned that, as a child, he'd fallen heavily from a gate and the authorities thought he might not recover and, I think, if he had an early death for a vegan, it may have been the consequence of that. He was certainly one of the outstanding people who have served the movement and, in retirement, he went up and down the country, giving his lecture, "Milk of Human Kindness" — all voluntarily of course, paying his own expenses, and coordinating Frey Ellis and others, medical people who were interested in the idea of creating a plant milk that was acceptable — some of the earlier efforts were pretty crude!

But it was not until 1965 that my great friend, Arthur Ling, who has devoted most of his adult life to creating and propagating the vegan idea, especially with regard to dairy produce, felt able to market an acceptable alternative to cows' milk. And of course, he's gone on from there, and, apart from running the Plamil firm, he's taking a great interest in the feeding of vegan infants. Because, of course, if any diet fails to produce healthy children, well, we must find a reason for it, and proceed from there, not taking "no" for an answer. But now, thanks to Arthur's work and those of many others, we've reached a point where the only safe way to rear children is on a vegan diet, which obviously must conform to a few well-proved requirements, and that's why Plamil and certain other vegan proprietary products now are fortified with vitamin B12, which, although it's a vitamin that we need an infinitesimally small amount of, we must have, and some people have lost the capacity to produce it in their own gut, so now we feel that, since B12 is a vegan product, produced quite cheaply fortunately, unlike some of our modern wonder drugs, so-called, we take it as part and parcel of our normal food intake.

I would bracket, of all the many people who have subscribed to the vegan cause, I hesitate to single out anyone, but I would say Leslie Cross and Arthur Ling must be put in the records as being the two outstanding, faithful, contributors to our cause.

Endnotes

[0] Leah Leneman. "No Animal Food: The Road to Veganism in Britain, 1909-1944" (1999 article)

[1] Leslie Cross. Response to Winifred M. Roux (1967 correspondence) appeared in the February 1967 issue of "Humanist" magazine (volume 82 number 2) page 58

[2] As found in the Vegan Society's 1972 pamphlet "An Introduction to Practical Veganism".

[3] "Messages of Congratulation" (1965) appeared in the winter 1965 issue of "The Vegan" pages 13-14

Leslie Cross. "In Search of Veganism—1" (1949 essay) appeared in the summer 1949 issue of "The Vegan" (volume 5 number 2) pages 13-15

Elsie B. Shrigley. "The First Decade: 1944-1954" (1954 essay) appeared in the winter 1954 issue of "The Vegan" (volume 8 number 1) pages 17-19

[4] George Roger. Interview with Donald Watson (2002)

[5] "David Glyn Cross and Francesca Ann Cross" (1948 essay) appeared in the spring 1948 issue of "The Vegan" (volume 9 number 1) page 14

[6] "Literature Available" (1952) appeared in the summer 1952 issue issue of "The Vegan" (volume 8 number 2) page 22

[7] Advancing from committee member, a role he had filled since 1947 [7a], Cross was elected vice-president of the Vegan Society at its Annual General Meeting on November 11th, 1950 [7b]. But he became "very sick" and was forced to step down in September 1951 so he could heal himself with "complete rest" [7c].

7a: Elsie B. Shrigley. "The First Decade: 1944-1954" (1954 essay) appeared in the winter 1954 issue of "The Vegan" (volume 8 number 1) pages 17-19

7b: "Annual General Meeting of the Vegan Society" appeared in the spring 1951 issue of "The Vegan" (volume 7 number 1) page 4

7c: "Reports for the Year Ending October 31st, 1951" appeared in the spring 1952 issue of "The Vegan" (volume 8 number 1) pages 7-8

[8] "David Glyn Cross and Francesca Ann Cross" (1948 essay) appeared in the spring 1956 issue of "The Vegan" (volume 9 number 1) page 14

[9] "Vegetable Milk" (1956 essay) appeared in the spring 1956 issue of "The Vegan" (volume 9 number 8) page 1

[10] Ibidem at page 2

Heron added an editorial note: "The above announcement has appeared elsewhere, and a number of people have already offered support should the Association be formed. Among them are some who are well known in the vegetarian movement. Interest has also been expressed by a firm that supplied the raw materials for a non-animal milk distributed in this country for demonstrations carried out by the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund.

It should be noted that membership would be open to anyone prepared to support the work of the Association, whether they are vegetarians or not.

All who respond to the suggestion will in due course be informed as to any further steps it may be decided to take."

[11] "Messages of Congratulation" (1965) appeared in the winter 1965 issue of "The Vegan" pages 13-14

[12] "Extraordinary General Meeting, October 13th" (1973 report) appeared in the winter 1973 issue of "The Vegan" (volume 20 number 4) page 14

[13] Kathleen Jannaway. Obituary of Leslie Cross (1980) appeared in the spring 1980 issue of "The Vegan" (volume 27 number 1) page 23

[14] George Roger. Interview with Donald Watson (2002) line breaks added

Doing the Right Thing: No Pride, No Shame

2011-05-15T10:47:00.005-04:00

From Low's music video for "Shame"

I'm rarely introspective about the fact that I'm a vegan. If you have been vegan for a while, you'll understand when I say that it becomes ‘second nature’. Kind of like breathing and blinking — it's automatic more often than not. Anyway, if I did ponder my veganism, my thoughts would go something like...

Of course I'm a vegan. It's the right thing to do. Even if I never do anything else about the exploitation of animals who aren't human, I'll always be vegan. I owe them at least that much.

What wouldn't cross my mind is that veganism makes me super awesome and worthy of praise or adoration. It doesn't. So I'm not prideful about being a vegan. It's not a source of pleasure in my life. Thankfully, I do have moments of happiness. You know: sunny spring days, spicy cauliflower curries, J Dilla instrumentals, and so on. But veganism, by itself, doesn't bring me joy or contentment.

The word pride has a few different meanings. In an effort to preempt confusion, I'll discuss some understandable uses of ‘pride’ that are related to veganism:

1) Being vegan generally involves violating some of society's norms and discarding some of its values. Simply put, veganism runs counter to expectations and beliefs we are taught from an early age. It's also true that most new vegans must adjust or abandon a few traditions shared with family, friends, and other groups. In light of these social realities, I can accept intermittent feelings of pride, which are mild and short-lived, during the first year or so following one's decision to become vegan.

2) It's possible, although quite unlikely, that deviating from society's expectations and beliefs concerning nonhuman animals could lead someone to face discrimination (perhaps in the form of bullying). In such scenarios, the term pride could be used as an expression of one's dignity and entitlement to respect.

3) The popular assumption is that a complete and tasty meal requires nonhumans' flesh and secretions. Many new vegans go through a process of discovering unfamiliar cuisines and expanding their cooking repertoire. It makes sense that some people will feel a touch of pride after creating a moist and delicious cake, or savory soup, with only plant-derived ingredients.

What I'm not comfortable with is anyone being perpetually prideful about their veganism. There are at least a couple reasons why. First, avoiding nonhuman exploitation is a basic component of a morally decent life. Second, veganism should primarily be about the injustice endured by nonhumans, not how it makes us feel or improves our lives.

Would I be similarly troubled if we were discussing human oppression? Certainly. Does it sound off to say, ‘I'm proud that I never rape and murder people’, or ‘I take pride in not using racist and homophobic slurs’? I think so. We don't exploit and discriminate against humans because it's wrong. We don't expect credit, and we aren't self-congratulatory. Why should our attitude toward nonhumans be any different?

When interacting with others, I hope to convey my confidence in the morality and importance of being vegan. But this isn't pride shinning through. It's a lack of shame about fulfilling my minimal obligation to nonhuman animals and a belief that others should do the same. In years past, I would endeavor to keep my ‘personal choice’ from others. Now it's clear to me that whether or not purple is my favorite color is personal. (But, in the spirit of being candid, I'll say that purple is one of the best colors!) Participating in the slavery and death inflicted on billions of sentient beings is anything but personal. Rejecting such an odious system is nothing we should be embarrassed about or reluctant to share.

We must abolish nonhuman exploitation. Embrace your responsibility — become a vegan.

‘Vegan’ ≠ ‘Vegan’ ≠ ‘Vegan’

2011-04-22T17:22:00.000-04:00

Why is there no consensus about the definition of ‘vegan’? Are abolitionists using the term differently than Vegan Outreach? What role does utilitarianism play in that group's positions? Continue reading to learn what this hominid thinks.

Activism and theory are inseparable. Gary Francione wrote about this recently, and I'm glad he did. Regrettably, many ‘animal people’ aren't interested in theory. Although I was once among their ranks, I have learned that ignoring theory doesn't alter the role it plays. All activism stems from a set of ideas about what is true and appropriate. These ideas can be your own, in that you understand them, or someone else's, if you follow a group's program without much thought.

While I admire the impulse to ‘just get active’, things aren't that simple. Fortunately, they aren't much more complex. Some reading and thinking are required, but it's not as if every activist needs to earn a fancy degree at an elite college.

We must first acknowledge that the ‘animal movement’ is not united, either by an ultimate goal or by activist tactics. There are currently several distinct camps of advocates working independently. For example, ‘welfarists’ envision a future where we exploit nonhuman animals ‘humanely’. This camp, which has existed for over two hundred years, pursues legal regulations of exploitive industries. In recent decades, ‘new welfarists’ have used this tactic to achieve different goals. Many hope regulation will significantly reduce the number of nonhumans we use and kill. Their concern is often limited to specific animal species or forms of exploitation. Other new welfarists believe regulation is needed to eliminate all exploitation of sentient nonhumans. Their long-term vision is shared by abolitionists, a camp opposed to regulation on both moral and practical grounds.

My position, as an abolitionist, is that all sentient beings have at least one right: not to be treated as property. In the words of Francione, recognizing this right demands that we, as a society, "stop our institutionalized exploitation of nonhuman animals; cease bringing domesticated nonhumans into existence; and stop killing non-domesticated animals and destroying their habitat" [0].

To move society in this direction, abolitionists focus on a simple message: become a vegan. This is because veganism involves avoiding all forms of nonhuman exploitation in our daily lives. It encompasses our decisions about food, clothing, entertainment, and more. Abolitionists view veganism as the moral baseline of any effort to rectify human/nonhuman relations. In other words, because using and killing nonhuman animals is wrong, veganism is obligatory. Activists should be vegan and deliver an unequivocal vegan message to the public.

Not everyone supports this use of the term vegan. For instance, the group Vegan Outreach (VO intermittently hereafter) doesn't base its work on rights theory. Matt Ball and Jack Norris, who formed VO in the early 1990s, have been adherents to utilitarian theory for over a decade. This shows up in everything their group does today — from its pamphlets and newsletters, to its definition of ‘vegan’. The guidance VO associates with this term has very little in common with that of the abolitionists.

As the title of this essay suggests, ‘vegan’ is not used with much consistency. A wide range of definitions is offered by dictionaries, the news media, animal advocates, and other sources. It can be a confusing scene for both new and long-term advocates. This helps me understand the temptation to ask, as many have: if both Vegan Outreach and the abolitionists promote veganism, why aren't they united?

Short answer: The theory guiding Vegan Outreach is incompatible with the theory guiding abolitionists. As a result, these camps engage in very different practices, and they disagree about the meaning of ‘veganism’. A complete response is beyond the scope of this essay. It requires thoroughly exploring the abolitionist approach, which I hope you will do soon, if you haven't already. The remainder of this essay focuses on another key to understanding this lack of unity: the ideas of VO and where they come from. Because the group is directed by utilitarians, we'll begin there.

Primer on a Theory
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that was first formally developed by English philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) [1]. In the nearly two centuries since Bentham, multiple variants of utilitarianism have been introduced. Not surprisingly, this subject can become quite complex. What follows is only a brief summary of core ideas.

Utilitarians work from the assumption that one or more states of affairs are "intrinsically valuable" (good on their own, not as a means to something else) [2]. Examples include the experience of pleasure, absence of pain, and satisfaction of preferences. For utilitarians, morality is the task of "maximizing the occurrence of intrinsically valuable states of affairs". More succinctly, we should "maximize value" (and "minimize disvalue"). In principle, it's irrelevant to whom value is distributed. So, everything else being equal, providing one person ten ‘units’ of pleasure is morally equivalent to giving ten people one unit of pleasure each. Likewise, causing eleven people to lower the ‘amount’ of suffering they inflict from ten to nine is better than inspiring one person to reduce from ten to zero (hence the phrase ‘utilitarian calculus’).

Utilitarianism is considered ‘consequentialist’ because it posits, "the rightness of an action is to be judged in terms of its results (consequences)" [3]. Therefore, before deciding how to act, people should weigh and compare the anticipated outcomes for everyone affected by each available option [4]. We should then choose whichever action produces the best overall result. Using this method, utilitarians can justify any conceivable behavior. They only need cause to believe the consequences of a behavior would balance out positively (e.g. the total amount of happiness in the world would increase).

Utilitarian theory is incompatible with both human and nonhuman rights. This is because a right provides "non-consequential protection for an interest" (which is something that someone "wants, desires, or prefers") [5]. In other words, a right protects an interest against being violated in order to produce what a group or individual predicts will be maximal consequences in terms of pleasure, pain, or another value. For example, people who protect your interest in continued existence with a right (i.e. recognize your right to life) would reject any plan to murder you and transplant your organs into several patients in need. They would make this judgment even knowing that such an operation could increase the sum life expectancy of everyone involved. To understand how utilitarianism relates to VO, we should discuss the person from whom their approach derives.

A Utilitarian Tradition
A large segment of the modern ‘animal movement’ is heavily influenced, often indirectly and without its full awareness, by the work of Peter Singer, a utilitarian philosopher who is frequently mislabeled "father of the animal rights movement" [6]. In truth, Singer is a leading intellectual in the animal welfare movement. He argues that we should reduce suffering by supporting adjustments, both legislated and voluntary, of how exploited nonhumans are treated (e.g. implementing alternative methods of slaughter and confinement) [7]. Singer's focus on suffering and reform must be seen in light of his belief that nonhuman animals, except nonhuman great apes and perhaps a few other species, very likely don't have an interest in continuing to live [8]. He describes the "wrongness of killing" nonhumans as "so much more complicated" than the wrongness making them suffer [9]. This is because animals who aren't human possess no "mental continuity", or an "understanding of what it is to exist over a period of time". Singer, on these grounds, "can respect conscientious people who take care to eat only meat that comes from" nonhumans who have been "killed quickly and without pain" after living "a pleasant existence in a social group suited to their behavioral needs" [10].

Many of Singer's thoughts on nonhumans, including the matter of killing them, echo Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), the utilitarian philosopher and social reformer who helped stimulate animal welfare legislation in England. Bentham is responsible for the frequently quoted (and misunderstood) statement: "The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?" [11]. Bentham's ‘question’ represents a significant turning point in history. He was rejecting many of the reasons frequently offered for excluding nonhuman animals from any moral consideration. However, he didn't argue that nonhumans have a right not to be used and killed [12]. (Bentham wasn't a vegetarian, and he described rights as "nonsense" [13].) He only meant that nonhumans' suffering should enter into our utilitarian calculations — at least in principle. Eating nonhumans was deemed acceptable because "we are the better for it" and they, lacking "long-protracted anticipations of future misery", are "never the worse for being dead" [14]. According to Francione, the "primary issue" for Bentham was not "whether we used animals, but how we used them". His "modern proponent", Peter Singer, still holds this view [15].

Singer and ‘Vegan Outreach’

“[T]he reduction of pain and suffering […] may not be the only rationally grounded value, but it is the most immediate, pressing, and universally agreed upon one. [W]hen pain and suffering are acute, all other values recede into the background. — Peter Singer [16]

“Ultimately, the bottom line is: Reduce Suffering. Everything has to answer to this. I can't emphasize this enough: the only thing that matters is to reduce suffering. — Matt Ball, cofounder of Vegan Outreach [17]

Some groups and individuals influenced by Singer are linking the term vegan with a utilitarian approach. It permits, if not requires, behaviors clearly inconsistent with a careful and earnest rejection of all nonhuman exploitation. In other words, it provides excuses for eating, wearing, and otherwise using animals who aren't human. This is morally problematic and contrary to the term's historical development. Vegan Outreach is the prime example of a large organization that consistently abuses ‘vegan’ in such a manner. Of course, utilitarian ideas manifest throughout ‘animal advocacy’, not just in certain uses of the term vegan [18].

“Professor Singer is a major supporter of Vegan Outreach, and has greatly aided in the expansion of our efforts to expose and end cruelty to animals. — Matt Ball [19]

At the center of VO's approach is the following principle: all activist efforts should be formulated to maximally achieve net reductions of nonhuman suffering. A crucial concept here, represented by ‘net’, is that we should focus on the overall effect of our actions. On VO's interpretation of this principle, ‘vegans’ should be encouraged to shun diligence and consistency. In particular, striving to avoid "minor or hidden animal-derived ingredients" and behaving the same way no matter who is with us are detrimental habits [20]. They can hinder efforts to reduce suffering by bolstering the public's perception that veganism entails doing "bold and uncomfortable things". Vegans have an obligation to keep their lifestyle from appearing "petty and impossible" [21]. For example, we shouldn't worry about vitamin D3, avoid sugar filtered with bone charcoal, or ask restaurant staff about ingredients in the presence of "nonveg friends and family". We can also "make the vegan case seem absurd" by openly objecting to exploitation endured by invertebrate animals, such as the bees who are used for honey and other substances [22].

“Being vegan, for me, is about lessening suffering and working for animal liberation as efficiently as possible. It has nothing to do with personal purity or my ego. If, by some bizarre twist, eating a burger (or, better yet, a triple-cheese Uno's pizza :-) ) were to advance animal liberation significantly, then I would do it. — Matt Ball [23]

“Vegetarianism is, for me, a means to an end rather than an end in itself. Whether we ought to be vegetarians depends on a lot of facts about the situation in which we find ourselves. — Peter Singer [24]

VO contends that veganism is "merely a tool to reduce suffering", not "an end in and of itself" [25]. Other suitable tools include handing out literature, making monetary donations, and pursuing welfare regulations. People who follow the group's "results based" approach have several ways to pacify their conscience without ceasing to eat, wear, and otherwise use nonhuman animals [26]. For instance, VO has argued that a "half hour of leafleting will likely reduce more suffering than going from 99.0 to 99.9% vegan for one's entire lifetime" [27]. In other words, a brief stint of activism can justify a lifetime of ‘cheating’ on occasion and being apathetic about the ‘details’ of avoiding nonhuman exploitation.

“Undoubtedly, in terms of the sheer numbers involved and the vast amount of suffering that results, ending factory farming should be the priority issue for all concerned with either the welfare, the preference satisfaction, or the capabilities, of nonhuman animals. — Peter Singer [28]

“The great majority of animal suffering in the United States is a direct result of people buying animal products for food. I think it is important that vegans make the meaning of the word "vegan" focus on avoiding the products that obviously/reasonably lead to animal suffering, so that people will understand that it is not about personal purity but rather reducing suffering. — Jack Norris, cofounder of Vegan Outreach [29]

The tool VO labels ‘vegan’ is nothing more than guidance for eating a predominantly herbivorous diet. Considering the many exceptions allowed or necessitated, this ‘vegan’ almost certainly doesn't meet the standard typically associated with ‘strict vegetarian’. VO's focus on diet is directly related to the utilitarian theory that underpins their work. It's a calculated response to the fact that more nonhumans are used for food than all other purposes [30]. Of course, less suffering is generated by the many forms of exploitation involving fewer individuals. This means activists who explicitly reject non-food purposed exploitation, such as that related to clothing and entertainment, are unfavorably balancing "trade-offs of time, money, and energy" [31]. Ultimately, the most effective path to reduced suffering is exposing people to the "realities of factory farming" and urging them to decrease or eliminate their purchases of overt "meat, eggs, and dairy products" [32].

Singer, despite his utilitarianism, will often use ‘rights’ as a rhetorical device or "convenient political shorthand" [33]. In a similarly brazen fashion, the group that calls itself Vegan Outreach has co-opted the term vegan. Their use of ‘vegan’ is divorced from history — vegan in name only. More importantly, it encourages lax attitudes and behaviors regarding nonhuman exploitation.

To close, a note that might interest potential commenters. This essay is not a personal attack on anyone. My intent is to explore modern use of the term vegan and explain vitally important differences between two prominent camps of ‘animal advocates’. So yes, it's ‘divisive’. Not in the sense of attempting to enflame pointless acrimony, but of illuminating a divide that already exists, can't be bridged, and must not be ignored by serious activists.

We must abolish nonhuman exploitation. Embrace your responsibility — become a vegan.

Endnotes

[0] Gary Francione & Robert Garner. "The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition Or Regulation?" (2010 book) page 1. numbering omitted

[1] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. "The History of Utilitarianism"

[2] Geoffrey Thomas. "An Introduction to Ethics: Five Central Problems" (1993 book) page 66

[3] Ibidem at page 71

[4] This is the position of act-utilitarians, including Peter Singer. Rule-utilitarians differ here significantly. Rather than recommending decisions be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, they believe we should act in accordance with rules that will lead to the best outcomes if followed by everyone.

[5] Gary Francione. "Clarifying the Meaning of a Right" (2007 essay) emphasis added

[6] Greg Neale. "Peter Singer: Monkey business" (2006 article)

Article also found here: www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/peter-singer-monkey-business-426768.html

[7] Peter Singer & Bruce Friedrich. "The Longest Journey Begins With a Single Step: Promoting Animal Rights by Promoting Reform" (2006 essay)

[8] Peter Singer & Paola Cavalieri (editors). "The Great Ape Project: Equality Beyond Humanity" (1993 book)

Peter Singer. "The Great Ape Debate" (2007 essay)

Peter Singer. "Practical Ethics" (2nd edition – 1993 book) chapter 5

Francione has written critically of Great Ape Project, an international organization founded by Singer and Cavalieri following the release of their 1993 volume of the same name. In his 2006 essay "The Great Ape Project: Not so Great", Francione argues that GAP reinforces anthropocentrism and "speciesist hierarchy" by suggesting that "a certain species of nonhuman is ‘special’ based on similarity to humans". Also reference chapter 3, "Taking Sentience Seriously", of his 2008 book "Animals as Persons", and his 2007 essay "Equality and Similarity to Humans".

[9] Peter Singer. "Animal Liberation" (3rd edition – 2002 book) pages 228-229

[10] Ibidem at pages 229-230

[11] Ibidem at page 7

It's interesting to note, though certainly not surprising, that VO produced a poster for this quote: www.veganoutreach.org/img/pdf/bentham.pdf

[12] This analysis of Bentham is derived from Gary Francione. Reference chapter 6, "Having Our Cow and Eating Her Too: Bentham's Mistake", of his 2000 book "Introduction to Animal Rights", and chapter 3, "Taking Sentience Seriously", of his 2008 book "Animals as Persons".

[13] Peter Singer. "Animal Liberation" (3rd edition – 2002 book) page 8

[14] Gary Francione. "Animals as Persons" (2008 book) page 133

[15] Ibidem at page 143

Quote found here: Gary Francione. "Introduction to Animal Rights" (2000 book) page 135

[16] Peter Singer. "How Are We to Live" (1995 book) pages 275-276

Quote also found here: Vegan Outreach. "Excerpts from How Are We to Live? by Peter Singer"

[17] Matt Ball. "Vegan is as Vegan Does" (2002 speech)

[18] In fact, some advocates, such as PETA vice president Bruce Freidrich, are increasingly moving away from use of the term vegan, preferring to use ‘vegetarian’ instead. Money driven organizations like PETA have an interest in appealing to as many donor bases as possible. This suggests the group will continue using both terms and varying the guidance associated with them depending on the audience. More on this topic: www.candidhominid.com/p/advocate-definitions.html#p2

[19] Matt Ball. "A Note Regarding Peter Singer" (2002 essay)

[20] Vegan Outreach. "On Living with Compassion" (essay)

Newsletter for May 13, 2002

[21] Matt Ball. "How Vegan? Ingredients vs. Results" (essay)

[22] Vegan Outreach. "Guide to Cruelty-Free Eating" (pamphlet)

Matt Ball in Vegan Outreach's newsletter for June 5, 2003: "To this end, we need to make as big a change as possible with as many people as possible, rather than, as you note, worry about honey or sponges".

[23] Vegan Outreach. "Defining Vegan"

Matt Ball in Vegan Outreach's newsletter for June 5, 2003: "If eating meat would lead to less suffering, I would do it".

[24] Peter Singer. "Utilitarianism and Vegetarianism" (1980 article)

[25] Matt Ball, cofounder of Vegan Outreach. "Vegan is as Vegan Does" (2002 speech)

[26] Vegan Outreach. "Guide to Cruelty-Free Eating" (pamphlet)

[27] Jack Norris, cofounder of Vegan Outreach. "Does Veganism Spread Itself?" (2008 presentation) time 18:40

[28] Peter Singer. "A Response to Martha Nussbaum" (2002 essay)

[29] Vegan Outreach. "Defining Vegan"

[30] Abolitionists might use this fact to help explain why many single-issue campaigns are problematic. For instance, see Gary Francione's 2010 essay "Is Every Campaign a Single-Issue Campaign?". However, they hold that it doesn't affect our moral duties or how the movement should be structured.

[31] Vegan Outreach. Newsletter for May 13, 2002

Peter Singer has suggested there is a problem of "diminishing marginal returns" (a concept borrowed from economics). Specifically, activists' ability to reduce suffering diminishes as their message becomes increasingly inclusive of exploitation forms that involve fewer nonhumans (e.g. vivisection and rodeos). Reference his 2006 audio interview about utilitarianism with Alan Saunders (time 23:50).

[32] Vegan Outreach. "Guide to Cruelty-Free Eating" (pamphlet)

Vegan Outreach states in an FAQ: "If 5% of Americans were to stop eating animals, far more suffering would be prevented than if we completely abolished every other form of animal exploitation in the United States".

[33] Peter Singer. "Animal Liberation" (3rd edition – 2002 book) page 8

In his 1978 article "The Fable of the Fox and the Unliberated Animals", Singer states: "With the benefit of hindsight, I regret that I did allow the concept of a right to intrude into [the 1st edition of "Animal Liberation" (1975)]; it would have avoided misunderstanding if I had not made this concession to popular moral rhetoric". In the book's 2nd edition (1990), he clearly explains that his argument is not based on rights. However, in other public communications, Singer still ‘concedes’ to the term. For instance, he doesn't object to being described as the "‘godfather’ of the animal rights movement" during a 2006 interview with Satya Magazine.

Reflection after Calamity

2011-01-14T12:37:00.005-05:00

Ballou's Monthly Magazine, May 1866

There is a section of the Little Miami River where I occasionally pick up ‘litter’. Last summer, I was returning from these uniquely sandy banks with the day's haul when my face hit something I couldn't see in the dusk. It was a spider's web. As this is a story about someone else's loss, I'm not very comfortable making it center on me. Nevertheless, my reaction was memorable, and it helped me reflect on how I've changed over time.

Several years ago, I probably would have been upset with the fates for cursing me with such an annoyance. My thoughts or exclamations would have been along the lines of: "Damn it! What the hell is that doing there? Leave me alone". (If I wrote or talked about this event, the home or tool I destroyed would have been called a ‘spider web’. No apostrophe-S to indicate possession and acknowledge the individual involved.)

So what was my instant reaction is this case? "Oh crap. I'm sorry."

Obviously, an apology changed nothing. The expression felt appropriate regardless. In that moment, it wasn't clear how much harm I had caused. I only knew my small inconvenience was incomparable to what I presumed the spider must be experiencing. Thinking about this reminded me that I've undergone a dramatic shift in attitude and awareness. One for which I feel quite fortunate.

We must abolish nonhuman exploitation. Embrace your responsibility — become a vegan.

A Book for Young Speciesists

2011-01-11T02:36:00.060-05:00

Not long ago, while visiting my parents, I found nineteen books from my youth that belong to a series published by the National Geographic Society: "Books for Young Explorers". The full series comprises several dozen titles released between the early 1970s and mid 90s. Retailers often list them as appropriate for children aged 4 to 8 years [0]. As examples from my collection demonstrate, most of the books are about nonhuman animals: "Baby Bears and How They Grow" (1986), "Animals and Their Hiding Places" (1986), "Creatures of the Woods" (1985), "Life in Ponds and Streams" (1981), "Strange Animals of Australia" (1981), "Wild Cats" (1981), "Animals that Build Their Homes" (1976), and "The Playful Dolphins" (1976).

The entries in this series I find most intriguing specifically address an aspect of human/nonhuman relations. My set includes "Baby Farm Animals" (1984), "What Happens at the Zoo" (1984), and "Helping Our Animal Friends" (1985). Although each of these is worthy of analysis, this essay focuses on "Saving Our Animal Friends" (SOAF hereafter), which was written by Susan Mcgrath and published in 1986 [1]. SOAF is laden with pictures, and only 19 of the 32 pages contain text. Each page, excluding the final two, has approximately 100 or fewer words.

Notes from Sociology
Why write about a book intended for kids? Early childhood is when most humans first absorb their society's speciesism. We teach them to uncritically accept and defend discrimination based on species and the routine exploitation of nonhuman animals on a massive scale. It's safe to assume that children reading SOAF are already being regularly exposed, as part of their primary socialization, to the speciesist values and norms that deeply permeate society.

Before proceeding, it should prove helpful to define speciesism and the three sociological terms just used: values, norms, and socialization. Skip ahead to the analysis of SOAF if you question my credentials in this regard or don't have much time to spare [2].

Speciesism is a socially constructed ideology. In other words, a set of widely held beliefs and expectations that are developed, transmitted, and maintained by the interactions of society's members. Speciesism exists to legitimize and justify species based discrimination against, and oppression of, sentient beings. Similar to racism, sexism, ableism, and other ideologies of discrimination, speciesism validates and explains society's use of an irrelevant criterion to determine that a certain group should be treated and valued differently. In this case, that criterion is species. Just like race, sex, and physical ability, species is a completely arbitrary reason to confer lower moral status.

Human actions, ideas, and institutions are speciesist when they fail to provide equal consideration and respect to someone or everyone who does not belong to the species Homo sapiens. This failure can occur simply because the individuals in question aren't human or because they are deemed not to possess one or more traits exhibited by certain humans, like language or abstract reasoning. Equal consideration is a component of almost every moral theory [3]. It requires us to treat similar interests in the same way unless there is a morally sound reason to treat them differently. For instance, humans and chickens both have an interest in continued existence. Respecting it in one case but not the other, such as by needlessly murdering chickens for food, is speciesist.

There is an important but often neglected distinction between discrimination and the ideology that supports it [4]. The following example highlights this distinction: Refusing to acknowledge nonhuman animals' basic right not to be treated as property is speciesist. This decision and the exploitive behaviors typically associated with it, like eating flesh and secretions taken from enslaved nonhumans, both constitute discrimination. We could rationalize denying nonhumans' rights and using them as resources on a wide range of grounds: tradition or custom, the victims not matching the cognitive sophistication of humans, the idea that ‘they're just animals’, and more. These responses derive from speciesism — the ideology of species based discrimination.

Values are "enduring beliefs that certain patterns of behavior or end states are preferable to others" [5]. As broad notions of what is good and bad, values help us assess what we experience and make decisions. However, unlike norms, they don't involve behavioral guidance for specific situations. Some values are almost universally held. Examples include personal freedom from slavery and the satisfaction of basic survival needs. Others are only held by certain individuals and groups. These values often revolve around concepts like individualism, nonviolence, tenderness, efficiency, imperialism, peace, equality, nationalism, cooperation, or aggressiveness.

One component of speciesism is the value, found in essentially all human societies, holding that nonhuman animals should remain exploitable but well treated things. Another such value maintains that humans should be the dominant beings on earth. Its manifestations include pejorative use of the word animal, some humans' reluctance to readily acknowledge they actually are animals, and arrogant claims about being at the ‘top of the food chain’.

Norms are the countless "rules or standards" that specify how "group members are expected to behave under given circumstances" [6]. They are socially enforced. This means that violating a norm, by behaving in a manner deemed improper for the situation, can elicit a range of sanctions (disapproving reactions) from people around us. Likewise, we might receive approbation for complying with a norm. Both forms of social response are typically more effective or influential when provided by friends, family, peers, coworkers, or anyone ranking above us in a hierarchical group to which we belong or aspire. A response generally has less impact when it originates from strangers, out-group members, or people of lower social status.

Anxiety about the possibility of being sanctioned can cause us to abide by norms we disagree with. Our own sanctioning of others' violations is sometimes intended to demonstrate or prove that we are truly compliant with a norm. Here again, we might feel compelled to ignore our objections to a norm. With prolonged exposure to a social environment where a norm is enforced consistently, it can be internalized. In other words, we can learn to view a norm as true or rational. The primary reason we comply with such norms is that we consider them appropriate, not that others expect it.

There is a difference between norms, as discussed in sociology, and what is commonly referred to as ‘the norm’ or ‘normal’. The former always concerns what should be, while the later often concerns what is. For example, after referencing data, we might say that it's ‘normal’ for 30 year olds in a particular region to be married (likely because greater than 50% of said population fits the criterion). If we asked a variety of unmarried 30 year olds about pressure from their friends and family to find a partner, we would learn something about society's marriage norms, such as how they differ according to an individual's age, sex, location, race, class, religion, and other factors.

It can be helpful to categorize norms as either mores or folkways. This addresses the fact that some norms are held in higher regard, and how we react to transgressions can vary greatly. Mores (MOR-ays) are norms associated with strong emotions and moral judgments. The violation of mores is not merely ‘bad form’, it's considered highly offensive or unethical. The social responses used to help enforce mores are generally severe. They can include fines, imprisonment, mandated treatment, assault, torture, and death. You probably recognize the following mores: We are expected not to engage in non-consensual sex acts, drive vehicles while heavily intoxicated, steal someone's money, or sell drugs deemed illicit.

Folkways are norms for what is customary and habitual. When challenged, they are often explained or defended with expressions like ‘that's just the way things are’ or ‘well, of course, everyone does it’. Violating a folkway is considered strange or distasteful but not morally wrong. The social responses that help enforce folkways are usually mild. They can include frowning glances, laughter, reproachful comments, and gossip. You might have experienced the following folkways: Our age, sex, and location affect expectations for how we should dress, adorn ourselves, and style our hair. We are expected to maintain a certain level of personal space when interacting with strangers. The age and class of those we interact with help determine expectations for first name usage. We are expected not to scratch certain areas of our body in public.

In certain circumstances, we are expected to participate willfully, if not enthusiastically, in the exploitation of animals who aren't human. These norms are usually folkways. Violating them tends to carry quite manageable repercussions from the people we interact with. For instance, barring a lactose allergy, not joining our non-vegan friends or family for ice cream made from cows' milk (or a trip to the rodeo) might trigger some eye-rolling or teasing, but we probably wouldn't be ostracized from the group or disowned by our family. Not surprisingly, the prevailing norms among an assembled group of vegans would differ dramatically (you would be expected not to eat such ice cream!).

Socialization is the "ways in which individuals learn" norms, values, skills, knowledge, motives, attitudes, and roles that are "appropriate" for someone in their position [7]. It's how societies and groups initiate new members and attempt to regulate how they behave and think. Socialization begins at birth, if not earlier, and continues as long as we aren't dead, permanently unreceptive to external stimuli, or living in complete isolation from other humans (which is nearly impossible).

Any individual, group, or artifact we interact with is potentially a source or ‘agent’ of socialization. In other words, anything that humans do or make can socialize others. This is because most of our actions and creations embody our ideas. Those that don't probably embody our compliance with society's norms and values. In either case, notions of what is proper are transmitted. For example, many forms of play emphasize the importance of winning, and certain clothes suggest that we should desire to be seen as sexy or fashionable.

Socializing agents you may be subjected to include families, schools, friends, peers, toys, language, books, movies, television, music, electronic games, news media, talk shows, advertisements, sports teams, social clubs, neighborhoods, subcultures, political parties, religions, governments, and workplaces. Depending on the circumstances and stage of your life, certain agents will be more or less relevant than others.

Primary socialization is the first and most important form of socialization we undergo. For the vast majority of people, it takes place in early childhood, a life stage beginning with infancy and ending somewhere between ages 5 and 8 [8]. Skills acquired during this period include using a toilet, speaking a language, forming relationships, and following rules.

Primary socialization provides basic tools needed to successfully live with and communicate to other humans. It gives us the opportunity to undergo secondary forms of socialization, which involve specialized sets of skill and knowledge like those required in workplaces and social clubs. If primary socialization is not received in early childhood, becoming a ‘fully functional’ member of society is difficult or impossible. This has been demonstrated by cases involving children who have been neglected in the extreme or grown up feral.

Humans develop a unique personality and concept of themselves during primary socialization. We become aware of our statuses relative to other members of society and the roles we play in various groups. Ideologies, such as classism and sexism, can also be assimilated. For instance, children usually have some beliefs and expectations concerning poverty and the place of women in the family or society. The perspectives, assumptions, and identity formed during our youth typically remain with us and help shape our adult lives. However, socialization is not destiny. The outcomes of our lives are influenced by choices we make and biological factors like genetics.

Socialization is driven by three main processes. Observation: Exposure to socializing agents offers countless cues, both subtle and not, about what is proper in a given context. Our actions are often delayed and subconscious imitations of something we witnessed. Conditioning: Other humans help regulate our behavior with rewards and punishments. Encouragement, compliments, and praise can reward. Disparagement, physical abuse, and criticism can punish. Instruction: People try to teach us what is ‘correct’ for someone in our circumstances. We regularly receive training, advice, and orders.

In the following examples, each process helps socialize a child to adopt one norm and one value. Volume Norm: While visiting the library, a six year old named Sandra loudly calls to her father from across the room. She is hushed by an employee and notices a displeased patron frown at her. Looking around, she observes that everyone else is being quiet. While walking home, Sandra's father reminds her that there are places where people should speak softly. Sharing Value: The next day, during a play period at kindergarten, Sandra builds a castle but won't let anyone else use the blocks. Some of her peers chastise and then physically isolate her. The teacher reports Sandra's behavior to her father, and during the ride home he tries to explain why sharing is important. When the next play period comes she decides to draw but observes a group of children happily dividing the blocks among themselves. Of course, the outcome in either example is uncertain. Norms and values are rarely internalized in just a day or two.

Back to the Book
In all likelihood, SOAF won't impart a new and foreign set of norms and values. Rather, it will reinforce the speciesism already integrated into nearly every child's thoughts and willful behaviors concerning nonhuman animals. The book will probably be viewed as an authoritative source of information, and it explicitly states ideas that most readers hold but would have difficultly articulating. Ultimately, however, SOAF represents just another possible factor among the perpetual onslaught of socializing agents that transform children into speciesists — from how their questions are answered by parents and teachers to the roles played by nonhuman animals in the toy sets they play with and television shows they watch. Nevertheless, if we hope to challenge an ideology like speciesism, we should be able to recognize its presence a book like SOAF, which purports to be about helping nonhuman animals.

Elephant Held Captive at a Zoo

The text starts by reminding us that we share our world with "many wild animals". It asks, "Have you ever held a frog in your hand?" An image of a smiling boy doing exactly that spans the first two pages. This notion that nonhumans can be subjugated and harassed at our whim for amusement or education is reproduced on the next page, which discusses the confinement facilities we call zoos. Visiting one allows us to "learn about" pandas, elephants, tigers and the members of others animal species we would otherwise never encounter. Assurance is offered that these captive individuals "are well cared for and have plenty to eat". This is consistent with the centuries old value that says using and killing nonhumans is morally acceptable if done ‘humanely’ and without ‘unnecessary’ suffering (also known as the ‘animal welfare’ view) [9].

Numerous animal species are discussed throughout SOAF. The omitted animals are those most routinely eaten and otherwise exploited in the book's primary market (the U.S.): cows, chickens, pigs, sheeps, and so on. Although ostensibly a book about ‘saving animals’, the author never indicates that we should consider not using nonhuman animals for food, clothing, or entertainment. This is not particularly surprising but it does send a message that is fully compatible with the status quo of a speciesist society.

Making Bird Feeders with Pine Cones, Peanut Butter, and Seeds

Front to back cover, a summary of ways "animals" have been or could be "helped": Feeding geese and ducks beside a lake. Operating a hospital for free-living nonhumans. Setting aside open land for elks. Restricting where motorboats are allowed, or erecting signs that warn about manatees. Protecting habitats with large parks and refuges. Not walking on beaches where terns lay their eggs. Assisting baby sea turtles to hatch and reach the water. Repopulating whooping cranes by placing any extra eggs into the nests of sandhill cranes (cranes will only raise one chick). Enacting laws that prohibit killing alligators and great whales. Not littering by always making use of trash cans. Providing seeds and pans of water for birds living near you. Putting out dried corn for squirrels and other animals. Building houses for bluebirds.

Veterinarians, other specialists, governments, and other institutions apparently play the most important roles. Apparently, a typical reader can have a morally exemplary relationship with nonhuman animals by performing some very minor actions, most of which won't occur on a daily or even weekly basis (if ever). To be clear, by themselves, many of the ideas listed above are perfectly fine. However, this book and the human community at large both make an outrageous assumption: We can be "the animals' friend" while ignoring our complicity in the murder and slavery endured every year by many billions of nonhuman individuals for what almost always amounts to trivial reasons (like pleasure, convenience, and tradition). For instance, humanity could easily fulfill all of its food and clothing needs with plants, synthetics, and minerals. Moreover, this change would dramatically reduce our environmental footprint, a benefit to countless sentient beings, both human and not.

Hawk Receiving Medical Attention

A hawk who broke his/her/zir leg appears on page 6. The suggestion is clear: We should hope for a speedy recovery and return to freedom. Most readers would have no problem with this. However, soon after feeling such sympathy, we might eat a chicken's leg for lunch then visit a zoo where peacocks are imprisoned for our entertainment [10]. During the primary socialization of our childhood, demonstrations of sympathy for animals we witness in distress or danger are often nurtured. However, this same period is when we acquire the ‘mental programming’ necessary to easily reconcile our intuition to be concerned about a sentient individual's wellbeing with our routine participation in the exploitation of nonhuman animals. Before we have much command over our rational faculties, speciesism is already integral to how we view the world. Chickens are ‘food animals’ according to nearly everyone we know and everything we have been told. Of course we eat their bodies and secretions; it's what I have always done and what they have been bred for. Likewise, the animals held in zoos are happy and well treated. Of course we hold them captive for our amusement; it's perfectly normal.

Socialization must have built-in redundancies to be successful. Norms and values might not be abided by or adopted if they are transmitted from just a single source. As with other ideologies of discrimination, the maintenance of speciesism requires the conditioning of society's youth to think in certain ways. It does not depend on this particular book, which only reaffirms what has already been, and will continue to be, established by a wide range of social influences. However, by recognizing the speciesist elements of works like SOAF, we better our understanding of what children go through. They are learning to accept the mass exploitation and murder of nonhuman animals, something they will perpetuate throughout their lives. In other words, the ideology that supports an ongoing atrocity is being transferred from one generation to the next. We can break this cycle by educating people of all ages about veganism. Inevitably, this requires us to confront speciesism.

Heart of the Matter
Like many "Books for Young Explorers", SOAF concludes with two pages of text titled "More About". While this section mostly just reviews and elaborates on what has already been stated, two passages stand out. The first is a discussion about hunting. Not inherently wrong, it becomes problematic only when done "too much" or "illegally", which can threaten "species on the verge of extinction". In other words, individuals should only be protected as a means of perpetuating the species to which they belong. The text does acknowledge that some people "regret seeing any animal killed". However, this intuition is immediately countered by describing how properly "regulated" hunting can actually "benefit wild animal populations". The second notable passage is an incisive account of the anthropocentric thinking that underlies both this stance on hunting and the book in general [11]:

“Why do we care about wildlife? Different people might offer different reasons. But perhaps the most fundamental reason is this: the tremendous diversity of life on earth adds richness to our lives that cannot be replaced.

The author reproduces society's belief that nonhuman animals only have extrinsic value. That they should be things valued according to the purposes we select for them: food, clothing, companionship, data, money, and so on. Free-living or ‘wild’ nonhumans are resources, both legally and socially, that can be hunted and harassed. If a species nears extinction, its members might be afforded protection. However, the individuals in question aren't suddenly thought to have intrinsic value. The concern is that eliminating their species would make our experience on earth less ‘rich’. Ultimately, individuals are always expendable, as long as their species will survive.

Consider analogous statements about humans who are discriminated against: ‘I care about women because of what they do for me’. ‘Black people are important because they add richness to my life’. Clearly, one of our most common beliefs about nonhumans would be deemed morally outrageous if applied to humans. This should be expected in a speciesist society. To conclude, a brief non-speciesist response to the question posed above:

Assuming "care about" at least rules out participating in murder, assault, and slavery — we should care about everyone who is sentient. This includes the vast majority of animals. If someone is sentient, he/she/ze wants to stay alive and has at least a basic form of self-awareness. We already "care about" humans who have no cognitive traits other than sentience. This is made clear by our moral judgments involving infants, the senile, and people who have transient global amnesia or severely impaired mental ability. To be consistent, and not speciesist, we must start "caring about" everyone who is sentient, regardless of whether or not they are human.

Nonsentient life forms like plants, fungi, and bacteria can be damaged and killed, but they can't be harmed. This is why we don't have obligations to them directly. However, it's possible to have obligations that involve or concern nonsentient life. For example, while cutting down a tree does not wrong the tree, it might fail to respect the interests of squirrels and blue jays who rely on the tree for food or shelter.

We live in a tremendously violent world permeated by discrimination based on race, sex, species and many other irrelevant criteria. Unfortunately, there are limits our ability to reject exploitation. In the broadest terms possible, people should do what they can. For example, if you can stop eating and wearing body parts and secretions taken from nonhuman animals — you should. If you are able to avoid purchasing items produced by humans in sweatshop conditions — you should. If you have the opportunity to use medicinal, cleaning, or personal care items that were not tested on nonhuman animals — embrace it. If you can choose not to join the group's trip to the zoo, aquarium, or rodeo — do it.

We must abolish nonhuman exploitation. Embrace your responsibility — become a vegan.

Endnotes

[0] For instance, see the Barnes and Noble product page for Jane R. McCauley's 1993 book "Africa's Animal Giants".

[1] Susan McGrath. "Saving Our Animal Friends" (1986 book)

Whereas SOAF focuses on free-living nonhumans, "Helping Our Animal Friends" focuses on humanity's relationship with domesticated nonhumans (mainly ‘pets’).

[2] I sympathize if you are reluctant to read what a random blogger has written about academic topics. I did reference several textbooks, lectures, and other materials while writing this section. However, it should be noted that my official schooling in sociology is limited to a bachelor's degree. Moreover, only a handful of citations are provided, and this essay has not been peer reviewed in any way.

[3] Gary Francione. "Introduction to Animal Rights" (2000 book) page xxv

[4] This distinction is identified by David Nibert in chapter 1, "Toward a Sociological Analysis of Animal Oppression", of his 2002 book "Animal Rights/Human Rights".

[5] H. Andrew Michener, John D. DeLamater, & Daniel J. Myers. "Social Psychology" (5th edition – 2004 book) page 439

[6] Ibidem at page 335

[7] Ibidem at page 51

[8] Definitions of life stages tend to shift over time and vary both between and within disciplines. Exactly when primary socialization gives way to secondary forms of socialization is not pertinent to this essay. In any event, trying to identify a precise age that can be universalized to every individual or culture strikes me as futile.

[9] Gary Francione introduces the distinction between animal welfare and animal rights in this slideshow. Roger Yates discusses the sociology of animal welfare in this two part podcast.

[10] Of course, what is morally relevant is not that all three cases involve birds, but that all three cases involve sentient beings. The examples could be adjusted accordingly.

[11] Emphasis added

Eva Batt Source Materials

2011-01-11T01:34:00.003-05:00

"Why Veganism?" (1964) HTML or PDF
"Confessions of a Very Slow Starter" (1981) HTML or PDF

These essays by Eva Batt (1908-1989) offer a fascinating glimpse into the history of veganism. Batt, a resident of England, became vegan in 1954, just ten years after the term was coined. She recounted this experience, which involved a face to face encounter with a cow recently robbed of her calf, in "Confessions of a Very Slow Starter". In an earlier piece, "Why Veganism?", she reviewed the history of veganism, offered a definition of the term, and discussed various moral and practical aspects of living as a vegan.

In the years following her ‘slow start’, Batt made major contributions to the spread of veganism. She was a highly active member of the Vegan Society who served fifteen years as chairperson and edited the commodity pages of The Vegan for over two decades. The society published her two cookbooks: "What's Cooking" (1973) and "What Else is Cooking" (1983). Batt was a council member of the American Vegan Society and director of Plamil, which began selling a canned soy milk concentrate in 1965. She also worked with Beauty Without Cruelty, a charitable trust that promoted cosmetics and clothing not derived from or tested on animals. She even owned a shop in Enfield, her hometown, that sold food, clothing, and footwear suited for vegans.

Welcome

2011-01-07T10:22:00.003-05:00

This site will be a continuation of my efforts at vegan-abolitionist.blogspot.com, where I blogged from 2007 to 2010. Visit the about page to learn more.